The leaders of Germany and France highlighted the gap now separating Britain and the US from some of their closest allies on policy towards Iraq yesterday, saying they could not support an attack without a UN mandate.

At the end of talks in the German city of Schwein, Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and President Jacques Chirac insisted that clear UN approval was necessary.

They admitted their position amid the growing evidence that George Bush and Tony Blair have agreed in principle on an invasion, perhaps before the end of the year.

Turkey is trying to dissuade the United States from launching a military attack on Iraq, prime minister Bulent Ecevit said in comments published today after a day of heavy diplomatic traffic between the two allies. The United States has made no secret of its determination to oust Iraqi president Saddam Hussein. Any military action to do so would almost certainly require cooperation from Turkey, a NATO ally to the North of Iraq. [..]

WILLIAMSTOWN, MASS. -- As Senate hearings get under way, Americans are beginning to work through their doubts about the prospect of war with Iraq. Commentators from right to left, as well as senior US military officials, have expressed concerns: the risks of extended combat and significant loss of American soldiers; the possibility of Saddam Hussein using weapons of mass destruction; the costs of a large-scale campaign.

--------------------------------------------------------

[5]
Eight Washington Lies About Iraq
by Jon Basil Utley 7/31/02
Each of these assumptions is refuted in the article:
1. Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack on America or is close to obtaining nuclear weapons 2. If we don't bomb Iraq, Saddam will use his WMD against us or his neighbors. 3. Iraq wouldn't let the UN - US monitors inspect possible WMD production or storage sites. That's why America started bombing. 4. It's Saddam's fault that half a million children died since the economic blockade. Saddam could feed his people if he cared instead of using his money to buy weapons 5. If Iraq allowed inspectors for WMD [Weapons of mass destruction] Washington would remove the blockade . Iraq must prove that it has no WMD and that it won't manufacture any in the future. 6. It's Iraq's fault that the blockade continues . America has nothing against Iraq's people, only against its government 7. Saddam gassed his own people 8. A War would be quick and easy to win. Iraqis would welcome Americans to overthrow their cruel dictator. America would then set up a friendly regime, easily occupy the country and rid it of weapons of mass destruction.

With the fight in Afghanistan still unfinished, with no evidence on the table to make the case that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to America, and with the terrifying implications of chaos in the Mideast if we do go to war there, why on earth would Bush and his people want to push towards battle?

In all likelihood, the answer lies within the geometry of the voting booth and the American marketplace. ....... By most reports, Republicans are facing an electoral wipeout to rival the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. A splendid little war, combined with the inevitable demands for patriotism, would serve to create Bush coattails where none currently exist.

Beyond that lies a motivation that is chilling in its inception. Larry Kudlow, a market analyst for CNBC, put forth the proposition in a column published on July 28th that war in Iraq is necessary to save the stock market. The article is entitled, 'Taking Back the Market - By Force.' "The shock therapy of decisive war," opined Kudlow, "will elevate the stock market by a couple thousand points.
---------------------------------------------------------

The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), has announced that he plans to hold hearings on Iraq starting tomorrow.

Given Sen. Biden's open embrace of regime removal in Baghdad, there is a real risk that any such hearings may devolve into a political cover for the passing of a congressional resolution authorizing the Bush administration to wage war on Iraq. Such hearings would represent a travesty for the American people.

WASHINGTON, July 29 -- An American attack on Iraq could profoundly affect the American economy, because the United States would have to pay most of the cost and bear the brunt of any oil price shock or other market disruptions, government officials, diplomats and economists say.

--snip--

The Persian Gulf war cost $61.1 billion, according to the Congressional Research Service, of which $48.4 billion was paid by other nations.

The House Budget Committee's Democratic staff said that in 2002 dollars, the cost of the war was $79.9 billion, providing a very rough benchmark for what a conflict of similar dimensions might cost today.

Representative John M. Spratt Jr. of South Carolina, the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee and a member of the Armed Services Committee, said the United States would come up with whatever money was necessary. But he said planning for a war now would have to recognize the nation's deteriorating fiscal condition and the need to address other priorities.

THE latest military option for toppling Saddam Hussein is the highest-risk venture so far to emerge from the leaky Pentagon. The Americans could learn from Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery of Alamein, who dispatched 30,000 allied paratroops behind enemy lines in 1944 to capture Arnhem and seven bridges on the Dutch-German border. Monty gambled that a narrow, penetrating assault deep behind enemy lines would have greater impact than a classic advance along a broad front. But Arnhem proved "a bridge too far".

To conclude, the warped projections and conjectures on the "coming war" on Iraq that are being relayed by American mass communication media completely exclude the humanitarian angle. US decision-makers have a new-found spring in their step after the miraculous "victory" in Afghanistan and the freeing of Kabul from the reactionary Taliban. The poltergeists of Vietnam and Somalia have given way to a swagger and arrogance that all future American military missions will be 'liberating' in nature and involve minimum military and civilian casualties. Objective history begs to disagree. CNN never discussed the final count of Afghan people killed and displaced in the recent Afghan war. Let it not be a case that the terrible human consequences of war on Iraq also remain under wraps. Highlighting them would be the only credible way to counter the dominant discourses of "patriot act" and "total war."

Tony Blair has been told by the Government's own lawyers that British participation in an invasion of Iraq would be illegal without a new United Nations mandate.

The advice, which is highly confidential, has led the Foreign Office to warn Downing Street that a fresh UN resolution could be the best means of ensuring Russian and moderate Arab support for any attack against Saddam Hussein.

Senior government sources say the Prime Minister has also received conflicting legal opinion from law officers that current UN resolutions could offer sufficient cover for any military action. But the very fact that even one part of Government has been told an attack could be illegal will delight the many Labour MPs worried that Mr Blair will unilaterally back an American assault.

The American people are not bloodthirsty and they would rather their government negotiate peace not war. The answer to Iraq is diplomacy and continued attention by the United Nations. The United States contained the USSR for 50 years using diplomatic measures. Our government has a responsibility to all the peoples of the world to end war not to start it.

Mr. Bush says that our government is "working towards peace." The government is in the position to spread peace by ending this threat to attack Iraq. Will he heed the advice from people outside his assemblage of provocateurs and henchmen?

The US has historically been one of the most resolute advocates of the Rule of Law. However, current trends indicate that it is moving dangerously towards completely shunning this approach, resulting in US reliance on Rule of Force as the principal means for solving global conflicts. While on the one hand the US disavows current obligations under international law and refuses to participate in new international legal mechanisms, it expects other countries to adhere to such laws and to US directives. Continued US attempts to increase its military domination combined with its withdrawal from international legal processes are eroding national and international security in an already unstable and unbalanced international environment.

Contents
[] There is no evidence of Iraqi links to Al Qaeda
[] The military threat from Iraq is greatly exaggerated
[] A war against Iraq would be illegal
[] Defeating Iraq would be militarily difficult
[] The U.S. has virtually no support from regional allies